zkLY8xTQ OP wrote

What do you mean concerns are no reason to fight?

Innocent until proven guilty, right?

The existence of any state is a threat

This is correct. My initial question though wasn’t if you’d respect the state, it was if you’d respect the decision of the individual to rather be part of it than not [and if you’d tolerate the state as in not trying to deconstruct it].

My bad if this didn’t come across clearly enough, “respect” was bad wording in my initial question.

But, according to the answers in this thread, there can’t be a single person in our 8 billion people who actually likes being part of a state.

I like your answer, because it’s pointing out the painful truth that anarchy is often displayed as something it is not, or isn’t even a topic discussed.

But again I can’t wrap my head around how you’re telling me theres not a single person who willfully is part of a state while also knowing the alternatives. And in fact there doesn’t have to be one. My question was based upon a assumption anyways.

Also I don’t dislike your opinion at all, it’s just the explanation and reasoning that seems off to me.

It may seem odd to you, but /u/stagn s answer is one of the more appealing ones in here, because, as of now, to me it seems to not be based on anything. And imo a opinion needs no foundation to be highly respectable. It’s when the reasoning is questionable that it’s validity starts to fade.


zkLY8xTQ OP wrote (edited )

So someone living in a stateless society would definitely be right to be concerned about a state existing anywhere near them.

Hell yeah I’d be worried! Power corrupts, it’s a matter of time. But concerns are no reason to fight.

I get it, I can’t argue you’re not forced. If one can not leave they are in on way or another forced, even if the don’t have the desire to leave. I’d say theres still a difference between being forced and a lack of options, but it’s very slim, I admit

But again how do you explain to me that many people do not have the desire to leave?


So I hope it's clear I'm against all authority and hierarchy, and that the 2 assumptions in your question are bad assumptions

Thanks for sharing your opinion(s) 🫶🏼


zkLY8xTQ OP wrote

yes that’s right, I did never in my life sign up for citizenship, in that sense, it’s not voluntary. and you’re also right, some states force you to have a citizenship - you in fact can not leave.

Yet people decide to stay in such systems with no desire to leave. Many desire change, for sure. If I were to go ask my neighbors if they’d prefer anarchy, I’d get some weird looks and many No s.

What you’re writing seems to me a rather biased opinion instead of a neutral view.

How can I force freedom on others. Forcing freedom. Seems off to me.


zkLY8xTQ OP wrote

all authority affects everyone

How? Why am I supposed to care? It’s none of my business, is it?! As long as they don’t bother me, why should I fight a system if I’m not even sure the people of the system want me to be against it?

And isn’t this contrary to the idea of absolute freedom we always talk about. Let the others have the freedom of being ruled, if they want to. It’s easy to say all these hierarchies are unjust, I agree. But you can’t deny that some people actually prefer it that way. I can’t just say everyone shares my opinion and if they don’t they’re simply brainwashed / opressed, it’s a fact that some people want a government.

Educate me :)


zkLY8xTQ wrote

I want to pick up coding again, but I don’t know what I should do. Most project recommendations online seem boring af to me because they lack any real world use case. Like really I’m talking 99.99%.


zkLY8xTQ wrote (edited )

Reply to by ManyGodsNoMasters

This is right. No need to argue whether you want to call a family a hierarchy or not, the main point is that mutual respect in a family, specifically a parent child relationship, is a must. And I think it’s hard to argue against that.

Edit: I see though the point of those who may say that no hierarchy can be justified. From that perspective the wording is a bit misleading.


zkLY8xTQ wrote

government agencies probably have the most capable AIs. And they actively use it for mass surveillance, I don’t think much has changed in the US since Snowden made the broad public aware, do you? ^^

warfare is a whole other story, considering what automated weaponry they have and considering what’s made public is usually already “the old stuff”.


zkLY8xTQ wrote (edited )

the products big pharma comes up with are actually great many times, provided you actually need them. The main problem is that many doctors and pharma firms are trying to sell medicine to people who don’t need it. e.g. pills against headache, most of the time there is a reason you have an aching head and you’d be better off just fixing the cause (sleep, hydration, stress, nutrition…)

Also I’m sick of THC being displayed as medicine. It’s a damn drug, which, apparently, can be medicine in some cases. The lines between drug and medicine may be blurry, but I’ve heard far too many people say “it’s no drug, it’s medicine”… bs (just my 2 cents because of the pic, not putting any words in your mouth you didn’t specifically state)


zkLY8xTQ wrote (edited )

TLTR properly but just after your first paragraph I have to disagree, voting is not only about bringing the right people to power / the current ones away - it’s also about preventing the wrong ones to gain power. There are even parties made up of comedians who just make fun of politics, it’s better to vote for them instead of not voting at all. Simple reasoning: it gives the (far)right parties less votes (in %). Besides that the anarchist movement is small, but a lot lot lot of people are orientated to the left and are in favor of more freedom. So, let’s unite and not insist on our / your optimal world order, rather make it the best currently possible ;)